Six sigma green belt project
Download
1 / 18

Continuous Quality Improvement Purchasing Justification Process - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 1131 Views
  • Updated On :

Six Sigma [Green Belt Project]. Continuous Quality Improvement Purchasing Justification Process. EMT-P Jason Ausman FTO Jim Bonham LT. Michael Hamel EMT Robert Hofstetter EMT-P Angela Holbrook. Team: . Sponsor:. Chief Chris Hansen. Facilitators:. DC Kim Dickerson Capt. Art Garcia.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Continuous Quality Improvement Purchasing Justification Process' - paul


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Six sigma green belt project

Six Sigma[Green BeltProject]

Continuous Quality Improvement

Purchasing Justification Process

EMT-P Jason Ausman

FTO Jim Bonham

LT. Michael Hamel

EMT Robert Hofstetter

EMT-P Angela Holbrook

Team:

Sponsor:

Chief Chris Hansen

Facilitators:

DC Kim Dickerson

Capt. Art Garcia


Problem statement
Problem Statement

The current CQI process is inconsistent with new product evaluation, justification, implementation, and validation.


Business case
Business Case

  • Develop a process that involves research justification of a demonstrated need for new equipment. The process will include timely training as well as periodic evaluation and validation.

  • Alignment to Business Strategy

    • BoCC FY 2007 Goals


Business case1
Business Case

Goal 2

Make Lee County Government the benchmark county in Florida for innovation and excellence in customer service and technological operations.

Objective 1 – Continue assessment of organizational practices through continuous improvement techniques.


Business case2
Business Case

Goal 4

Answer: “What is the business of Lee County Government?” by identifying and defining, periodically evaluating, and maintaining, core levels of services that can be shared and understood by the public.

Objective 2 – Early on in the annual budget development process, identify – through a fact based analysis – a target percentage for operational increases for the coming fiscal year that will be communicated, as a goal, to county departments an Constitutional Officers.

Objective 6 – Continue fiscal solvency by monitoring, evaluating and maintaining core services. Assure a full and complete evaluation of any changes in levels of core services, including budgetary impacts.


Define phase
Define Phase

  • Previous ExpendituresCCEMT-P course

    • $30,000 budgeted

    • Actual expense closer to $300,000

    • 11/05    5 Students CCEMT-P

      Pittsburg, PA                                     $18,830.20

    • 1/06     5 Students CCEMT-P

      Augusta, GA        $15,320.75

    • 4/06      2 Students CCEMT-P

      Augusta, GA         $  7122.48

    •                    Total                $41,273.43


Define phase1
Define Phase

  • Previous Expenditures

    • Narcotic Bags- 8/2005

    • 50 Narc.Personal/Safe Boxes

      (Koons Locksmiths) @ $11.95 ea    $597.50  

    • No provision for cost to continue program

    • No implementation evaluation/validation


Define phase2
Define Phase

  • Previous Expenditures

    • Ambulance Cameras

    • 40 Kodak Easy Share C310

    • Digital Zoom Camera $87.00 Each     $3,480.00

    • 40 Kingston Flash Memory

      Card-128MB-SD       $14.50 Each           580.00

                                        Total                 $4,060.00

    • No provision for cost to continue program

    • No implementation evaluation /validation


Preliminary goal
Preliminary Goal

To develop a process that results in enhanced patient care, demonstrates fiscal need and provides for long term sustainability.

Result = risk avoidance


The project scope
The Project Scope

  • Request made to purchase the Auto Pulse

    • Do we really need it?

    • How will it make a difference?

    • Is it financially achievable and sustainable?

    • Periodic evaluation and validation.


Previous expenditures
Previous Expenditures

  • Cameras:

    • Mandate – No

    • Patient care/employee driven – Trauma Services request

    • Immediate implementation required – No

    • Evidence based – questionable

    • Non-evidence based – Trauma Services opinion

    • Refer to CQI committee – no

    • Financial resources available – non-budgeted item

    • Other financial resources – July spending

    • Recurring resources accounted for - no

    • Training/Educational resources – minimal

    • Can we get what we need in a timely manner – yes

    • Acceptable overall risk - yes

    • Purchase - yes


Previous expenditures1
Previous Expenditures

  • Narcotic Bags:

    • Mandate – No

    • Patient care/employee driven – Pine Island and Alva deployment

    • Immediate implementation required – Yes

    • Evidence based – questionable

    • Non-evidence based – Opinion generated

    • Refer to CQI committee – no

    • Financial resources available – non-budgeted item

    • Other financial resources – July spending

    • Recurring resources accounted for - no

    • Training/Educational resources – minimal (non-budgeted)

    • Can we get what we need in a timely manner – yes

    • Acceptable overall risk – yes (questionable at this time)

    • Purchase - yes


Previous expenditures2
Previous Expenditures

  • CCEMT-P course:

    • Mandate – No

    • Patient care/employee driven – Pediatric Services request (LMH)

    • Immediate implementation required – No

    • Evidence based – questionable

    • Non-evidence based – Pediatric Services opinion

    • Refer to CQI committee – no

    • Financial resources available – $30,000.00 budgeted

    • Other financial resources – none

    • Recurring resources accounted for - no

    • Training/Educational resources – not accounted for

    • Can we get what we need in a timely manner – yes

    • Acceptable overall risk - yes

    • Purchase - yes


Measure phase
Measure Phase

Auto Pulse

  • $15,000 per unit

  • $750,000 for 50 ambulances

  • $125 per chest strap

  • $7 bio-shield

  • 526 cardiac arrests in 2006

  • $69,432 disposable cost


Conclusion
Conclusion

  • Define Project Implementation: March 1, 2007

  • Measure Project Completion after 25 Cardiac Arrests

  • Analyze Analyze data collected against current process of manual CPR during the same time frame

  • Improve Determine justified need for purchase

  • Control Project referred to Continuous Quality Assurance/ Improvement Committee

Design By: FTO Dominick C. Watts, NREMT-P, FP-C


ad